AWA – Argument #4
Any political organization than advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals should be prohiitied for operating within our nation.Such groups are detrimental to the society since violent, short-term solutions can only lead to more serious long-term problems.
The argument that any political organization that advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals should be completely prohibited from operating within the nation just because they are detrimental to the society is a flawed one. There are many holes in the argument that needs to be filled.
Firstly, nothing has been mentioned in the argument about what are the agenda and the policies of the political organization. They may have some very strong, powerful and most importantly, apt policies that they want implemented. But there are opponents who would not allow such policies to be enforced and are crushing any attempts by this political party. The use of violence, in that case, becomes a necessity to come into power and do well for the country. Many countries have known to achieve freedom by a military uprising and/or violent attacks on the oppressors. If they would not have done so, they would be still serving as serfs to their evil masters.
Secondly, it is baseless to say that short-term violent solution can lead to long-term serious problems. Instead, a short-term violent approach can be a faster and quicker method to achieve a solution than a longer approach of unending diplomatic talks and negotiations. In the latter, it is always seen that poor citizens bear the brunt of time and exploitive diplomats. Kashmir has been a center of debate among Pakistan and India. Talks have been going on for such a long time that ultimately now the situation has completely gone out of hand. When the issue had initially erupted a military solution to this problem would have once and for all taken care of the issue.
Lastly, we all know that there are political parties, who in spite of not using violence, are detrimental to the society by virtue of their being sly crooks who work for their own benefits and not the country. They take bribes, support nepotism, and exploit the citizens because of their power and positions. They can be much more problematic than those parties denounced in the argument. Shouldn’t such parties that play dirty politics be prohibited from operating within the nation? By the same argument that they can be detrimental in the long run for the country, they should surely be banned.
Thus, the argument is not entirely convincing. The author should justify that the motive behind the political party to use violence is equally bad as violence itself. He should give examples of how such political parties have created serious long-term problems and why providing a peaceful solution is the best way to solve any problem. Only then the argument will be able to convey its message convincingly.
